RE: [atlarge-discuss] New panel elections?

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 12:41 -0600 2003/02/09, Hugh Blair wrote:
>My view: An OFFICIAL list of all the members should be gathered in one
>place - I really don't care who holds it for now.

I do care, I'm afraid. One member of the Panel should be our Interim
Secretary, specifically charged with responsibility for
- maintaining and updating the membership database
- regular reporting of Panel decisions and membership statistics
- sending out notices to all members of any upcoming elections
  in good time and ensuring that the Panel remembers not all
  members can respond instantly to their e-mail
- keeping the personal information on members confidential
  unless each member specifically authorizes its release.
If this had been done (and it's pretty normal for any kind of
group or association), we would be further along than we are
with fewer disputes.

>Another canvas, call
>it a vote or a pole, at this time it doesn't matter, should be taken
>of that list with one question:
>
>"Should the current Panel be disbanded and a new one elected. YES/NO"
>
>This could happen within a just a few days - no need to drag it out.
>Voting should start 3 days after the notification of an upcoming vote,
>and although I have some doubts about Joop's PollingBooth, we have no
>alternative at the moment and it can be used for this action. Just to
>be clear, I have *no* doubt about Joop's honesty, I just don't know
>enough about the PollingBooth to feel totally comfortable with it.

Here, too, I must disagree. Vittorio is on record as saying he
will not be bound to respect the results of a vote held by
anyone but the Panel itself because it's "dangerous".

It is clear that even if we voted "Yes" at the Polling Booth he
would dismiss the results. If other Panelists accepted the
results and chose to resign to create vacancies, he would
continue down the list of candidates who lost the last election
and, if there were none left, would call an election to fill
only the last few places ... on no authority but his own
assumption that "democracy" is what happens when people are
allowed to vote once for people who have no respect for the
democratic process and live indefinitely with the results!

Therefore, I call upon the present *Panel as a body* to implement
a ballot by e-mail as was done for the choice of domain name,
without further delay, on the resolution:

  RESOLVED THAT the Panel immediately call for new
  nominations for all positions on the Interim Panel
  preparatory to calling a new Panel election no
  later than April 1, 2003.

If the motion carries, we have new elections. If it does not,
Vittorio et al. can carry on until August under their current
(self-defined) mandate while the rest of us write a clearer
mandate for the next Panel.

Under parliamentary procedure, this type of resolution is not
undemocratic at all. When you believe a government has lost
the confidence of its supporters, you call for a vote; if it
passes, a new election is called, leading to a new government.

>With this message I've noted my views. I call on the members to
>reply to this with:
>
>1 - suggestions and changes, or
>2 - a "YES" or "NO", telling this group how you feel about my ideas.

A qualified "yes". I like your analysis and proposal for the
candicacy process, etc. but there is no point doing this via
the Polling Booth unless the Panel abides willingly by the
result or we can agree to circumvent them if they don't.

The (quasi-)official process is more cumbersome since it calls
for the Panel to hold an e-mail referendum (which follows the
process they chose earlier on) on something like my resolution,
after which the election would either be moved up or not.

The ballot -- at the Panel's discretion, it seems -- might or
might not include the text of the previously-used election
procedure, might or might not allow members to vote on whether
that procedure is acceptable to them or whether they'd prefer
the Web-based poll, etc.

Under some model Constitutions which have been suggested for this
group, the membership may itself call for a ballot of 10%-15%
of the membership go on record as supporting the call. We don't
have such a clause yet but I think we do need one and the means
by which a membership resolution *must* be circulated to all
members to determine the extent of the support it has.

Thus far, our Panel has been unwilling to let us vote on such
things but any potential panelist wanting my vote would do well
not to stand on ceremony and claim we have no legal voice in these
decisions. I believe a Panel acting in good faith cannot simply
refuse to put this matter to a membership vote.

>Now carry on with your Sunday,

Sorry, Hugh, I just got this Tuesday morning!

Struggling madly to keep up,

Judyth

##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de